Thanks Holly. Yes, when we present to the WG next week, I agree that it will be useful for our first group to say something along the lines of: "Among those comments that rejected the premise of Annex E and the Disclosure Framework, there were X comments that argued that P/P Providers can never disclose and/or publish under any circumstances, and there were Y comments that argued that P/P Providers can only disclose and/or publish following receipt of a court order, subpoena, or other legal process authorizing them to do so. The X comments were submitted by __, __, and __, and argued __, __, and __. The Y comments were submitted by __, __, and __, and argued __, __, and __." That said, I'm not sure that we necessarily need to divide our sub-team into three smaller groups rather than two. Mainly because I'm not sure that the "no, not ever" comments in the first bucket are really going to require that much more work on our part. What more analysis would need to be done other than to tally them? From: Holly Raiche [mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 11:51 PM To: Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com> Cc: gnso-ppsai3@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai3] Thoughts on a work plan Thanks Todd I must admit I was a bit stumped on a way forward. I think I'd split the first bucket again into the no, never under any circumstances, and the ones that said only with a legal process (court order. subpoena). I think that's useful because it indicates that its not just a yes/no debate, but a debate that starts with a flat no, and then moves away, starting with the court order and then court order plus I'd rather be in the second camp,, but I do think that we do need to distinguish between the outright nos and those who say yes - but only under a court process Holly On 31 Jul 2015, at 6:52 am, Williams, Todd <Todd.Williams@turner.com<mailto:Todd.Williams@turner.com>> wrote: Am I the first to try this out? Cool. As I mentioned in my email on Tuesday (attached), I thought that the presentation that we had on our last call from the 1.3.2 sub-team was helpful to illustrate where we'll need to be by 8-11, which in turn might help us decide what we'll need to do to get there. Specifically, I thought it helped that the 1.3.2 sub-team divided their work into two basic questions, and then presented separately on each. I'd recommend that we do the same. Here are the two that I'd propose: 1) Those comments that rejected the premise of Annex E, and instead argued that P/P Providers can never disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or other legal process authorizing them to do so. Presumably this group would present on: * How many of these comments were there? * Who did they come from? * What arguments did they make? * What ramifications would these arguments have on other portions of the Initial Report beyond Annex E? 2) Those comments that accepted the premise of Annex E that P/P Providers can sometimes disclose and/or publish absent a court order, subpoena, or other legal process, but then offered thoughts as to whether and how the Disclosure Framework outlined in Annex E ought to be modified. Presumably this group would present on: * How many of these comments were there? * Who did they come from? * What arguments did they make? * What potential changes to Annex E could the WG make to address the arguments raised in these comments? I offer those two buckets for a couple of reasons. First, I think it will help our sub-team "divide and conquer" the work that we have before us (much like the 1.3.2 sub-team did). Second, I'm not really sure how we'd otherwise substantively reconcile those two buckets of comments. A comment that argues that P/P Providers should not be allowed to disclose and/or publish absent a court order isn't arguing for changes to Annex E; it's arguing to scrap Annex E altogether. With those two buckets in mind, I've taken a first pass through the comments in the Review Tool Word Document that Mary circulated (attached). My thoughts below. First, can everybody double-check to make sure that they agree with how I've tentatively divided the comments? Once we're comfortable with that allocation, then perhaps the next step would be to divide our sub-team into two (or three, if some members want to tackle the third "unclear" category) to start reviewing the comments in each bucket and then drafting two documents to present to the WG answering the questions outlined above (and any other questions that anybody wants to suggest). Finally, one last question for Staff: can you give us a little bit of information on the methodology of how the attached Word document was compiled? I'm just curious because I want to make sure that our sub-team is comfortable that what we are reviewing is exhaustive. For example, I know that Turner's comment (available here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ppsai-initial-05may15/pdfrXQ3VcnSR7.pd...) had some thoughts on Annex E. Yet it wasn't included in the attached. And I only know that it mentions Annex E because I drafted it. :) So I want to make sure that there aren't other comments on Annex E that we also ought to be reviewing. Thanks. Look forward to working with everybody. Todd. Todd D. Williams Counsel Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. One CNN Center, 10 North Atlanta, Georgia 30303 P: 404-827-2234 F: 404-827-1994 todd.williams@turner.com<mailto:todd.williams@turner.com> * Bucket One: rejects the premise of Annex E. 1) Internet Commerce Association (though with carve-out for breach of material service terms such as Internet abuse) 2) Google 3) 1&1 Internet SE 4) Access Now 5) Endurance Int'l Group 6) Jeff Wheelhouse 7) EasyDNS (though with same carve-out as ICA for breach of service terms such as net abuse) 8) Greg McMullen 9) Evelyn Aya Snow 10) Ralf Haring 11) Liam 12) Dr M Klinefelter 13) Sam 14) Dan M 15) Adrian Valeriu Ispas 16) Not your business 17) Simon Kissane 18) TS 19) Cort Wee 20) Alex Xu 21) Kenneth Godwin 22) Shahed Ahmmed 23) Sebastian Broussier 24) Andrew Merenbach 25) Finn Ellis 26) Aaron Holmes 27) Michael Ekstrand 28) Homer 29) Donuts 30) Michael Ho 31) Key Systems * Bucket Two: accepts the premise of Annex E, but offers thoughts on how to change the Disclosure Framework. 1) BC 2) MPAA 3) ISPCP 4) CDT, Open Technology Institute & Public Knowledge 5) INTA 6) IACC 7) NCSG 8) Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas 9) Cyberinvasion 10) Phil Crooker 11) Aaron Myers 12) Cui (ADNDRC) 13) Mike Fewings 14) Name withheld 15) Gary Miller 16) Byunghoon Choi 17) Reid Baker 18) Nick O'Dell 19) Time Warner 20) RIAA & IFPI 21) IPC 22) Thomas Smoonlock 23) Vanda Scartezini 24) Tim Kramer * Bucket Three: unclear. 1) Sven Slootweg 2) Brendan Conniff 3) Marc Schauber 4) Aaron Mason 5) Kevin Szprychel 6) Christopher 7) James Ford 8) Shantanu Gupta 9) Christopher Smith 10) Private 11) Robert Lukitsh 12) Adam Miller 13) Charles 14) Aaron Dalton 15) Stephen Black Wolf 16) Ian McNeil 17) Adam Creighton 18) Arthur Zonnenberg 19) Anand S. 20) Lucas Stadler 21) Alan <Re Sub Team for Annex E - wiki and documents.eml><Public Comment Review Tool - Annex E - 24 July.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai3 mailing list Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai3@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai3